New Roof on Old Beams: Griboyedov Repair Dispute

In central St. Petersburg, next to Kazan Cathedral, a major roof repair is underway at the nearly 130-year-old Vladimirsky building (31 Griboyedov Canal Embankment). Residents had been waiting for these works because the roof «was like a sieve,» said one of the owners, Mikhail. However, after the repair began, they had many complaints about the quality.

The customer is the Capital Repair Fund (Fond Kapitalnogo Remonta), the designer is Master Roof (Master Ruf), and the contractor is KitInvest. The total contract for eight addresses was 120 million rubles (about $1.2 million at current rates), with this building«s share being 19.2 million rubles (about $192,000).

According to Mikhail, he was alarmed that some wooden beams were replaced while others were left old. When asked why, the workers referred to the project documentation. In the remaining beams, according to the resident (a builder by profession), deep longitudinal cracks, signs of beetle damage, mold, blue stain, and rot are visible.

Before the start of work, the structures should have been inspected, including for biological damage using the thin probe method. «The first thing I requested from the Capital Repair Fund was the inspection results, including drill cores. In response, I was sent in circles: the Fund, the Central District Administration, the management company — but no one provided those documents,» Mikhail explained.

Another controversial point is the old slag in the attic. According to the project, a vapor barrier and 150 mm thick mineral wool should be laid on top of it. Mikhail is sure this violates construction standards (SP 50.13330.2012) and will lead to heat loss, roof icing, and icicles. «Slag has rather high hygroscopicity. It absorbs moisture and retains it for a long time. ... Moreover, chemical reactions can occur in slag when in contact with water. ... For residential premises, this is critical,» the St. Petersburg resident explained.

Also, according to him, the mauerlat (roof foundation beam) is not secured and is rotten. The project requires attachment with metal studs at a specific spacing, but «how can you screw them in if the wood is loose? ... And what does an unsecured mauerlat mean? That under load it can shift. And the roof will collapse.» The mauerlat rests on brickwork which, according to residents, is in a deplorable state — some bricks can be removed by hand.

Position of the Capital Repair Fund

In the Fund«s response to Mikhail»s appeal, defects found during inspection of the rafter system are listed: sheathing, rafter legs, struts, mauerlat, and purlin are damaged by rot, «...the mauerlat and purlin are damaged by rot in local areas from 1/3 to full section.» According to verification calculations, individual rafter legs are unable to withstand loads; the overall condition is limitedly operational. However, the document states: «only rafter legs affected by defects are subject to replacement.» Regarding the slag, the Fund explained that its complete removal is not mandatory; the weight of the fill is accounted for in the project and affects the rigidity of the floor. «Replacing the slag with an equivalent volume of another heavy bulk material is impractical, and removing it would disrupt the design balance of floor rigidity.» The Fund also said the work is strictly in accordance with the project documentation, which was approved. A thermal engineering calculation showed that insulation with mineral wool, partially using the existing slag, is sufficient. There are no grounds to make changes to the project.

Investigative Committee to Check Quality of Work

Mikhail contacted the Housing Inspectorate, Rospotrebnadzor, the prosecutor«s office, and the Investigative Committee. He has already given explanations to an investigator. »The investigator said that a technical examination will be conducted as part of the check,« the interlocutor added. The check is being conducted under Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (performance of work that does not meet safety requirements), which provides for punishment ranging from a fine of 300,000 rubles (about $3,000) to two years in prison, and up to six years in case of group conspiracy. The Investigative Committee confirmed the check and the appointment of a construction-technical examination. Residents intend to seek a halt to the work and correction of the project documentation: complete replacement of wooden structures, removal of old slag, and other changes.

How to Act in Case of Poor-Quality Major Repairs

Kirill Zakharyan, a member of the presidium of the St. Petersburg Association of Homeowners, recommends the following procedure:

• Contact the customer — the Capital Repair Fund — and report violations.
• If the problem is not resolved, write to the management company, the Housing Inspectorate, the prosecutor«s office, Rospotrebnadzor, and also the Investigative Committee.
• Prepare for a court process. The lawsuit can be filed by either the management company or the owners. It is better to name the customer (the regional operator) as the defendant, with St. Petersburg bearing subsidiary liability.

The expert warned that litigation could take years and require significant financial costs.